Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Report Claims Snowden In 'Contact With Russian Intelligence' (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Edward Snowden has been in contact with Russian intelligence officials since arriving in Russia in 2013, according to a new report from Congress. "Since Snowden's arrival in Moscow, he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services," the 33-page report, issued Thursday by the bipartisan House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked volumes of information on American intelligence and surveillance operations to the media, settled in Moscow after initially traveling to Hong Kong following his 2013 public disclosure of classified information. The Russian government granted asylum to Snowden shortly thereafter. Large portions of the pertinent section, entitled "foreign influence," are redacted, but one paragraph reveals the Russian link, saying that Frants Klintsevich, the deputy chairman of the Russian parliament's defense and security committee, "publicly conceded that 'Snowden did share intelligence' with his government." Snowden immediately took to Twitter following the report's release to dispute the accusations, writing "they claim without evidence that I'm in cahoots with the Russians." The report cites classified material in the section linking Snowden to Russian intelligence. The investigation also noted that Snowden left encrypted hard drives containing classified information in Hong Kong and that the CIA had refused to grant Snowden access to sensitive information years before he began working with the NSA, documenting numerous issues that Snowden had with supervisors and co-wokers during his various jobs in the intelligence community.
I'm trying to figure out how this is news. Snowden was granted asylum by the Russian Government. Naturally there will be some kind of interview process that includes intelligence officials even if such interviews are conducted in the least confrontational way possible.
The more telling part is that if it's true that the CIA actively refused to grant him access to information (ie, evaluated and made a choice, versus simply not granting access as the default policy) and he was later granted that access by the NSA as a different employer, then perhaps there needs to be better protocols for how the various agencies determine risk.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This is more from the smear report they released a few months ago.
Barton Gellman (one of the reporters that received the full Snowden Archive) investigated the report the first time and concluded it's full of provable lies and smears.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/
Agreed, and the falsifications in that report are almost too numerous to count, but Ed gave it a try.
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
"Mistakes were made:" Less than 24 hours after releasing report claiming I lied, HPSCI is walking back its report. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/in-declassified-edward-snowden-report-committee-walks-back-claims-about-intentional-lying
From that link:
In Declassified Edward Snowden Report, Committee Walks Back Claims About 'Intentional Lying'
The House Intelligence Committee in September issued a three-page document alerting the public that information from its two-year investigation of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden had turned up evidence that Snowden was a “serial exaggerator and fabricator” who exhibited a “pattern of intentional lying.”
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Here you go...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
"A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' "
From this link:
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution.
There are plenty of other examples. To commit treason, there must be an Enemy. For an Enemy to exist, war must be declared.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
> purportedly phished
At least for the Podesta emails, we have good reason to believe that. I've covered this several times previously in comments, but we have some pretty good evidence when you line things up with the timing of it:
* A spear phishing email to Podesta conveniently dated not long before the dump ends.
* The stats page for the bit.ly phishing link says the link was used twice in the right time frame.
Slashdot finally covered this story via thehill.com, some weeks after I had already dissected it in comments and in that they appear to admit to getting phished, blaming it on a "typo" (which is highly suspect, but whatever).
I'd write more submissions about this sort of thing, but there appears to be an organized effort going around marking anything they don't like as "SPAM" in the firehose (like this), as I've also seen happen abusively to other submissions on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tagging herbal viagra ads as 'binspam', not stories I disagree with. I'd much rather disagree with someone openly than sneak around and try to hide inconvenient facts. If the facts stop agreeing with me, I'd much rather start rethinking my positions than playing blame games.
Finally, for those having trouble keeping all the dumps straight, I left this comment some time ago that will help to clarify. There have been a lot of dumps and there are some people who like to confuse and conflate these issues.
I'm not at all familiar with the Pentagon papers, but the Climategate ones were really overplayed. There's nothing juicy in there - no evidence of a cover-up or efforts to falsify data. Just scientists doing their science thing. There were a few quotes which sound incriminating when taken out of context, and that was enough for it to earn the gate-suffix: People saw what they wanted to see. Or read a re-blog of an opinion column that claimed to be revealing the truth of the vast UN-lead conspiracy to destroy the energy industry.
I've read through comment sections on forums that did allow editing after the fact and there is the potential for dishonesty there (e.g., "Disqus").
Commenter A: Santa Claus does not exist!
Commenter B: You are a cad! Santa Claus most definitely does exist!
Commenter A: [after changing his post] Idiot! When did I ever say otherwise! Can't you read?!